Pages

Friday, 5 June 2015

Active and Passive Voice

Active and Passive Voice Sentences

I’m
happy
to share on my blog the thoughts that crossed my mind regarding active and passive voice sentences and the responses of Mr Rod Mitchell to
these thoughts. I had the privilege of meeting him while sharing my thoughts to
discussions topics, raised in ELT Professional Around The World, a community in
LinkedIn. He and I got to know each other through our contributions.

I had some lingering doubts about how to name a
sentence as active or passive. They resulted from definitions accorded to
‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’. They achieved focus while I took a look at the
examples A S Hornby provides under the Verb Patterns in his A Guide to
Patterns and Usage in English.

I
selected a few examples as representative of some verb patterns in A S Hornby’s
Guide and based my doubts on their structures. I sent these to Rod Mitchell
seeking his guidance and help. He gladly obliged.

There
are four sets of correspondence between us. Each set includes my queries and
Rod Mitchell’s responses.

Correspondence

Sections
1—3 are summative and provide the essence of what active and passive sentences
are in Rod’s own words. You’ll see a detailed account of my doubts and his
responses in Section 4. Reading sections 1—3 first will enable us to understand
and appreciate better the help Rod Mitchell provides in Section 4.

Section 1

Rod

We have to be clear about what “active” and
“passive” really are with regard to the English verb system. The traditional
descriptions are based on Latin grammar, in which the verb itself has active
and passive forms:

“Dominus portam aperit.” The head of the household opens the door.
“Porta aperitur.” The door
is opened / The door opens.
“Porta domino aperitur.” The door is
opened by the head of the household /

The
door opens by means of the head of the household.

The active in Latin shows that the subject does an action; the passive shows
that the action happens to the subject, or that the subject does an action that
is caused by an agent.

Section 2

Rod
English doesn’t have a passive in this sense. The so-called passive in English
is in reality a verb + result adjective construction. That is why teachers and
students can get confused by “I am bored” – is it passive or not? “I am bored
by this film” makes it seem passive, but this is only by adding in extra
information (by the film) where we can see the cause of the boredom.

The meaning of the active and passive are more important. The active is
personal, as it focuses our attention on the “doer” or the “undergoer”:
John opens the door. – this
is a personal active
The door opens. - this
is a personal “passive”
John underwent an operation. – this is a personal “passive”.

That is to say, English verbs themselves can be active or passive in how they
focus the action on the subject; “open” is active and passive [verbs like this
are often called “middle” or “ergative”]; “undergo” is passive in its own terms.

An
ergative verb can be used in both transitive and intransitive way with the
same meaning, where the object of the transitive verb is the same as the
subject of the intransitive verb: The
verb ’grow’ is ergative because you say ‘she grew flowers in her garden’ and
‘flowers grew in her garden’. Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

Another important thing to keep in mind is that
there is not actually a direct relationship between active and passive. Many
active sentences can’t be made passive, and many so-called passives do not have
an active “equivalent”.

We
call a sentence ‘active’ or ‘passive’ because of the meaning it conveys or
carries, not because of its structure.

Section 3

Rod

When I teach the passive, I always FIRST focus
on the semantics of it. Starting from structure (particularly in the
generative sense) gives the wrong understanding of what the passive and
active really are.

Cooking or engineering is a good start;

Sydney harbour Bridge was built in the 1930s by XXX. It spans 2 kilomteres and
each section was prebuilt before being assembled as the bridge
advanced.

The passive is used because the focus is on the bridge and what happened to
it.

I at times use examples such as police reports or military
propaganda:

An Iraqi police station was destroyed by a smart bomb with some collateral
damage.

This is typical US military press report language. They want the focus to
be on the Iraqi Police Station (and hence BAD in the minds of the gullible
public), the destruction was done by a smart bomb ("smart" also
being a clever piece of propaganda), and the "some collateral
damage" is just to be expected.

An Iraqi news report would put it very differently:

An American bomber pilot destroyed an Iraqi Police Station as well as
destroying neighbouring buildings and cars by using a guided bomb, killing
all inside and many passersby.

The passive "hides" the actor; the active puts the focus onto the actor.

Section 4

All
these thoughts are amply explained and elaborated on by Rod while clearing my
doubts about examples given in VP 1 to 10 quoted by me in my letter to him in
relation to the understanding of active and passive voice sentences and to how
they operate in real life.

Please
read the following. You’ll to take the trouble of moving back and forth as the
queries and responses are interconnected.

Part I

When
a non-native learner learns English grammar they’re beset with disturbing
doubts. Non-native teachers may not have the knowledge to sufficiently satisfy
their learners’ curiosities.

One
such area is the relationship between SVO sentences and passivisation. We
non-natives infer generally that sentences with transitive verbs (‘active’
sentences) can be put into the passive. But
while some SVO sentences in a verb pattern lend themselves to passivasation,
several others in the same pattern do not.

A.
S, Hornby in his A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English:

“Patterns
1 to 19 are of verbs used transitively (that is, with a direct object).
Patterns 20 to 25 are of verbs used intransitively (that is without a direct
object).”

My doubts:

I

VP1®SVD.O.

I
know your name.
Your name is known by me. (unusual)

He
dug a deep hole. A
deep hole was dug (by him)

She
has had breakfast. Breakfast has been had been had by
her. (unusual)

He
cut himself.
?

She
said ‘Good morning’. ?

She
laughed a merry laugh. (cognate object)
---

She
smiled her thanks. (cognate
object) ---

This
climate does not suit me. ?

Please
describe clearly what you saw ?

My
sentences:

Do
you know how to do it?

I
have a lot of property.

I
want breakfast.

Rod Mitchell’s
explanation:

SVD.O.®1) VP1

(a quick note:“Your name is known by me” – this is unusual because of the role
of

“me” – I am a reference in this context, and
therefore the correct preposition is “to”:

London is familiar to me.
According to my information, this should be the Central Post Office.
Your name is known to me.

“To” is used because it refers our attention TO the location where the
information is to be found.)

Verbs like “dig”, “have [breakfast]”, “laugh” are subject-focusing, and are transitive and intransitive:

She laughed a merry laugh. A merry laugh was laughed (by her).
She laughed merrily.
Such verbs, given semantic logic, can also be reflexive (and therefore
transitive):

He cut some paper. Some paper was cut by him.
He cut and cut and cut until he had got all the way through.
He cut himself with the knife. He was cut by himself with a knife. (?)

Some verbs, like “say” and “see”, can only be
transitive:

She said ‘Good morning’. Good morning was said (by her). (?)

He saw the dog on the road : The dog on the road was seen by him.
The butler saw the visitor to the waiting room : The visitor was seen to the
waiting room by the butler.

Note that in this case : “Please describe clearly
what you saw ?”, because the focus is on “you” and what you saw, it is
therefore personal, and the passive can’t be used. Putting it in the passive
changes the focus:

“Please describe what was seen by you” – this puts the focus on the object(s)
seen.

Verbs like “smile” and “suit” fit into a different
category, being verbs that are intransitive, and when they have a direct object
(and so syntactically transitive), the direct object is being “transported” by
the smile.

She smiled her thanks. = her thanks were conveyed to the other person by her
smiling; her smiling in itself is essentially an intransitive act.

This climate does not suit me. – “me” here strictly speaking is indirect – I am
the

(non)recipient of a state of suitability.

Two other examples are these:

They closed up shop at ten.
They set up house together.

These are also essentially intransitive clauses despite being transitive in syntax.
Like “smile”, there is a causative effect (the smile being conveyed to the
receiver, the shop being closed, etc.), however such sentences cannot be made
passive because (1) they are
subject-focusing and therefore personal, and (2) the objects have a
“resultative stative” role. “Close up shop” essentially means that the work is
now finished; i.e. they are now resting. “Set up house” means that they are now
living together, and it could be in house, a flat, an apartment, or even a tent
if they are Bedouin. Neither “shop” or “house” refer to a real shop or house.
“Her thanks” also are not real “thanks” – she did not actually say the word
“Thanks”. However, the result is the same as if she really had said
“Thanks”.

Do you know how to do it? : this is a personalised sentence – I want to know
if YOU know how to do it. Such personalised sentences cannot be made passive
because the passive is impersonal.

I want breakfast. : this is also very
personal. The passive is possible, but very strange except in very
impersonal contexts (The escaped prisoners are wanted for murder).

This is like “I love you” – this sentence is so personal that the passive (You
are loved by me) is never used – except in a very impersonal case, such as a
psychologist trying to convince a suicidal person that he/she is actually
loved.

“have” – this can only be made passive when “have” has an action-active
role:
Everyone had fun : personal focus
Fun was had by everyone. : impersonal focus

In “possessive” contexts, “have” doesn’t refer to an action, it is “stative
active”. Statives cannot be made passive (in this “have” fits in with “smile
thanks”, “suit me”, “close up shop”, “set up house”, etc.).___________________________________________________________________________

My doubts:

II

VP
2®SV O (not v+
to-infinitive)

It
has begun to rain.

Please
try to do better next time.

My
sentence: He began to advise me.

Rod’s explanation:

The to +
infinitive is NOT a noun; these sentences are intransitive, and so cannot be
made passive:
It has begun to rain.
Please try to do better next time.
He began to advise me. (= he began the activity of advising me)

HOWEVER, the third example does have a direct object – which is the direct
object of “advise”:

I began to be advised by him. (= I began the activity of being advised by
him)

The distinction is; in “he began to advise me”, “he” is the focus of the
sentence. In the second (I began to be advised by him), I am the focus.

English is a topic-focusing language; whatever goes at the beginning of the
sentence is normally the topic of the sentence, and the syntax of the
sentence adapts to that.

Many
people supposed him to be innocent. He was
supposed to be innocent by many people.

He
declared himself to be a member of... (no passive is possible)

Do
you think him to be innocent?
Is he thought to be innocent?

Do
you think (that) he’s innocent?
?

They’ve
proved that they’re worthy of promotion. That they are worthy of promotion has

been proved (?)

VP4® SV it C
Clause/phrase

Do
you think it odd that I should live by myself? Is it thought odd that I
should...

I
think it a pity to waste them It’s thought a
pity to waste them(?)

Rod’s explanationsCategories VP 2-4 are really the same category as
the first VP2, and the “active” – “passive” variation depends on the same
reasoning.

I shall have to go. : this is an intransitive sentence; “to go” is NOT a noun
and therefore not an object.

I do not want anyone to know. : again a personal sentence that cannot be made
passive (*”anyone is not wanted to know by me” means nothing – if you said tis
to a native speaker, they would not understand). “Anyone to know” is a
subordinate clause.

I don’t want there to be another fight. : again a personal sentence that cannot
be made passive (“There to be another fight is not wanted by me” – this might
be understood, but it is very abnormal).

“Declare X” (like think and prove) is a regular transitive, and can be made
passive.
“He declared himself to be a member of... “ : “He himself was declared to be a
member of …”
“He declared John to be a member of …” : “John was declared to be a member of
…”
“He declared war on the Turks” : “War was declared on the Turks (by
him)”.

They’ve proved that they’re worthy of promotion.
That they are worthy of promotion has been proved.

Do you think it odd that I should live by myself? –
this one cannot be made passive; it is personal, being “you”. However, when the
context is very impersonal (not you, or me, or them, or …), then the “passive”
is used : “Is it thought odd that I should...”.

The same is true for “I think it a pity to waste them” – this is too personal
to be passivized. The impersonal equivalent is:

It’s thought to be a pity to waste them.

However, the impersonal form is more commonly used when the activity is already
happening, and so this is more apt:

Wasting them is thought to be a pity.__________________________________________________________________________________

My doubts

IV

VP5A® SV O
infinitive

Watch
that boy jump!
?

Did
anyone hear John leave the house ?

I
like to hear her sing.
?

Rod’s explanation

Watch
that boy jump! - this is an imperative – very personal, and so can’t be made
passive.

Did anyone hear John leave the house ? – again a very personal sentence that
cannot be passive.

I like to hear her sing. – again, a very [personal sentence that cannot really
be made passive. “I” and my liking is the focus of the sentence, not her
singing. Essentially, the sentence is intransitive.

VP5B® SVO
infinitive

They
made me do it. I
was made to do it.

What
makes you think so?
?

I’ll
let you have the news.
?

I
have never known him behave so badly before.
He has been never known to ....

Shall
I help you carry the box upstairs? ?

Rod’s explanation

“They made me do it.”
“I was made to do it.”
What makes you think so?

In older English, the first sentences was “They made me to do it.” (cf. They
forced me to do it, I was forced to do it). The passive has kept the older
structure, whereas the active has transferred to another category, that of
contexts where the bare infinitive is used.

The preposition “to” shows that the subject (etc.) had a goal. “They forced me
to do it”, “I was forced to do it”, “I was made to do it” expresses that “they”
(or whoever the agent is) wanted/aimed to make me do it.

“They made me do it” has entered into the category of cases like the
following:

I must do it.
They let me do it.
They made me do it.
I will do it.
I can do it.
I’ll let you have the news.
I have never known him behave so badly before.

The absence of “to” shows that the nuance of “goal” is absent. The information
is presented as a “fact”, not a “goal”. “They forced me to do it” shows that
that was their goal (me to do it); “they made me do it” simply presents that as
a matter of fact.

He has been never known to behave so badly before.
He was heard to say that he wanted to be President.

“To” here has its reference (= goal) role – the presentation is impersonal, and
also is not necessarily true; the person speaking wants us to believe that, but
maybe it is not true. This use of the passive with such verbs is common in
journalese to give this nuance of “it is believe to be so”.

Shall I help you carry the box upstairs? – this is
a personal sentence (“I” am the focus”, and so it cannot be passive.
(cf. I was helped up the stays = I had difficulty going upstairs, and so I was
helped).___________________________________________________________________________

My doubts

V

VP5B® SVO
infinitive

She
likes to have the house look clean and tidy. ?

He
would have had her believe that ... ?

Rod’s
explanation

She likes to have the house look clean and tidy. –
a personal intransitive sentence that can’t be passive.
He would have had her believe that ... ? – a stative focusing and so it can’t
be made passive.

VP6A® SVO present
participle

I
saw the thief running away. The thief was seen running away
(by me).

Can
you smell something burning? ?

Just
look at the train coming down!

Rod’s explanation

Can you smell something burning? – a personal
sentence that can’t really be made passive in ordinary use (Can something be
smelled burning by you? is very strange – it almost means “do you have the
power of smelling burning things?)

Just look at the rain coming down! – an imperative sentence, and so cannot be
made passive (it is too personal).

VP6B® SVO present
participle

I
found him working at his desk. He was found working at
his desk (by me).

The
news left me wondering what would... ?

Rod

The news left me wondering what would... :: I was
left wondering by the news (as to) what would

VP6B® SVO present
participle

I
can’t have you doing that.

He
soon had them all laughing.

Rod

I can’t have you doing that.
He soon had them all laughing. – stative active sentences, and so can’t be
passive.___________________________________________________________________________

My doubts

VI

VP7A® SVO adj

She
flung all the windows open. All the windows were
flung open (by her).

The
pain drove her almost mad. ?

Raise
you head high!
Imperative cannot be passivised?

He
shouted himself hoarse.
?

Rod

The pain drove her almost mad. :: She was almost
driven mad by the pain.

Raise you head high! – the imperative is very personal, referring to “you”, and
so can’t be passivized, unless “you” are the direct object : “(You) get out
there and be seen!”

“He shouted himself hoarse.” – cannot be made passive (this sentence is
intransitive [resultative active], like “she smiled her thanks”)

VP7B

I
found the box empty. The box
was found empty (by me).

He
likes his coffee strong.
?

I
want everything ready by this evening. ?

Rod

He likes his coffee strong. “His coffee is
liked strong “ - this is only possible when “he” is the person who made the
coffee, not the drinker.
I want everything ready by this evening. – this is too personal to be passive.
Verbs like “want” and “love” are rarely passivized because they are so
personal.___________________________________________________________________________

VII

VP8® SVO noun

They
elected Mr Grey (as) Chairman.
Mr Grey was elected (as) Chairman.

He
made the company what it is today.
The company is made what it is today...(?)

They
found the place a prosperous village

and (they) left it a ruin.
?

Rod

He made the company what it is today. The company
WAS made what it is today...
They found the place a prosperous village and left it a ruin. > The place
was found a prosperous village and left (as) a ruin.___________________________________________________________________________

VIII

VP9® SVO past
participle

I
heard my name called.
?

He
had seen town destroyed by bombing. ?

Rod

I heard my name called. : I heard someone call my
name.
He had seen the town [as it was] destroyed by bombing. – The town being
destroyed by bombing had been seen by him.__________________________________________________________________________________

IX

VP10® SVO adv. Adj.

You
should wind it up. It
should be wound up (by you).

The
child picked itself up.
?

Have
you packed them up? Have they
been packed up (by you)?

Rod

The child picked itself up. – cannot be made
passive – this is personal active.

VP10A® SVO noun

We
must lock up the house. The house must be
locked up (by us).

She
put on an air of innocence.
An air of innocence was put on (by her). (?)

C.E.Eckersley
and J M Eckersley in their A Comprehensive English Grammar say:

‘When the action expressed by the verb goes
from a subject to an object, that verb is called a TRASITIVE verb.’

Note:
This definition appears defective.

2.

Michael
Swan says:

A
transitive verb is one that can have an object.

An
intransitive verb is one that cannot have an object or be used in the passive.

Note: Does Swan say by
implication that all transitive verbs may not be put in the passive?

Thanks
for the help.

Rod’s explanation:

How do
we explain this confusing issue? By focusing not on the syntax, but on the
verbs and other players in the sentence. Active and passive are not
grammatical properties, they are semantic-syntactic properties that have
meaning.

A transitive verb is a verb that has a direct object. However, in English
(and many other languages), this is a structural characteristic:

S – V – O

However, this structural transitivity covers various types of verb,
transitives, transitive-intransitives, causative transitives, passive
transitives, etc. Often it is these aspects that impact on whether an active
can be passivized, or a passive can be activised.

Eckersley and Eckersley give the standard traditional description, BUT which
is restrictive – or, as you say, defective. For example, it doesn’t include
verbs like “undergo”.

‘When the action expressed by the verb goes from a subject to an object, that
verb is called a TRANSITIVE verb.’

In verbs like “undergo”, the action expressed by the verb goes from the
object to the subject.

Note: This definition appears defective.

The key semantics are the contrast between “personal” and “impersonal”, and
the related “topic focusing”. The passive is impersonal and
object-topic-focusing, and the active is personal and
subject-topic-focusing.

Michael Swan.

A transitive verb is one that can have an object.
An intransitive verb is one that cannot have an object or be used in the
passive.

This is better, in that it focuses on the construction rather than the
subject to object affect.

However, intransitive verbs can appear in the passive in certain
cause-and-effect constructions:

What
follows contains doubts arising from the explanations offered by Rod Mitchell:

I thank you, Rod, from the bottom of my heart (I
don’t know if this is an English expression, this is how we Indians express our
deep gratitude in English as we do in our own languages). The quickness with
which you responded doesn’t amaze me at all for I know you have everything at
your finger tips. Expressing them with such clarity and simplicity, too. Nor am
I amazed at my slowness for I’ve taken more days than you did, to understand,
assimilate and then shape my doubts. I’m a slowcoach. I’m so unsure that I need
to say to myself twice or thrice before I can write a sentence as far as my
thoughts on English syntax is concerned. Even then I may not land perfectly.

But now I have a fair idea of the notions
surrounding active and passive voice statements and am in a position to provide
an explanation, thanks to you.

I need more answers.

My doubts

I

The news
left me wondering what would...

I was left wondering by the news (as to)
what would...

(Isn’t
this usually said without the ‘by-phrase’? Because the agent is not essential
here)

The pain
drove her almost mad.

She was almost driven mad by the
pain.

Please describe what you saw.

Please
describe what was seen by you.

I can
imagine these passives being used but I’m not sure about the following:

1. He cut himself with the knife.

He was
cut by himself with a knife. (?) Isn’t this awkward and unnatural?

2. She said ‘Good morning’.

Good
morning was said (by her). (?)
Can ‘good morning’ be a topic of
a sentence?

3.
“He
declared himself to be a member of... “ :

“He himself was declared to be a member of
…” awkward and unnatural? 4. Everyone had fun.
Fun was had by everyone. Can’t imagine ‘fun’ as a topic in this context.5. He had seen the town [as it was]
destroyed by bombing.

The town being destroyed by bombing had
been seen by him.

Even if ‘the town’ were the topic, this passive sounds unnatural.6.
He began to advise me.

I began to be advised by him.

Even when ‘I’ is the focus as in

I was confused; I had choices but the
difficulty was

the choosing. Now one looked good,
now another,

better. ...

Isn’t
‘John who was listening to me all the while began to advise me’ natural or
should the

paragraph
complete itself with ‘I began to be advised by John’? Or can either be used and

considered normal paragraph completion?

All the passivised sentences are syntactically
possible. But do people use them? What contexts occasion these passives? Or the argument that “English is a topic-focusing language;
whatever goes at the beginning of the sentence is normally the topic of the
sentence, and the syntax of the sentence adapts to that” is good enough for these passivisations to occur in conversations as
acceptable ones? Or does mere possibility of passivisation mean they are naturally
occurring sentences?

Rod’s response:

(“I thank you from the bottom of my
heart” is also an English expression, as well as many other languages, at least
in Europe)

To answer your queries.

(1) The news left me wondering
what would... I was left wondering by the news (as to) what would...

Your question: “Isn’t this usually said
without the ‘by-phrase’? Because the agent is not essential here”

My answer : it is more commonly said without
the “by phrase”, just as many or even most passive sentences don’t have the “by
phrase”. However, it is correct to use the “by phase”. The “by phrase!” shows
that the news caused the wondering. In the following example, the news itself
doesn’t cause the wondering. Something else caused me to wonder about the news.

I was left wondering about the news (as
to) what would...

(2) He cut himself with the knife.
He was cut by himself with a knife.

Your question: Isn’t this awkward and
unnatural?

My answer: It is not so much awkward or
unnatural, but rather “unusual”. It is a way of highlighting that he himself
cut himself, that he was not cut by
someone else. However, it is more commonly put as an active.

(3) She said ‘Good morning’. Good
morning was said (by her).

Your question: (?) Can ‘good
morning’ be a topic of a sentence?

My answer: the objects of verbs like
“say”, “speak”, etc. can be the topics of the sentences, certainly.

German was spoken by most people
present.

“Good mornings” were said by all
present, and then business started.

(4) “He declared himself to be a member
of...” : “He himself was declared to be a member of …”

Your question: awkward and unnatural?

My answer: no, not awkward or
unnatural. However, the second does not mean the same as the first. Using the
-self forms like these emphasises the topic – puts the focus solely on the
topic. He himself was declared to be a member, not anyone else.”

(5) Everyone had fun. Fun was had by
everyone.

Your question: Can’t imagine ‘fun’ as a
topic in this context.

My answer: it is perfectly normal – and
very easy to imagine. The important thing to realise is that “topic” does not
equal either “actor/subject” or “object/subject/patient”. It is simply the
topic of the sentence. The topic of the sentence is the fun that everybody had.

My note: For what ‘patient’ is, see my
Part V.

(6) He had seen the town [as it was] destroyed by bombing. The town being
destroyed by bombing had been seen by him.

Your question: Even if ‘the town’ were
the topic, this passive sounds unnatural.

My answer: the [as it was] in the first
sentence is significant. The passive sentences has “missing” information : The
town [as it was] being destroyed by bombing had been seen by him.

It means that he saw the town at that
time when it was being destroyed by bombing. Like all sentences, you have to
realise that the context is all important. Within context, “The town being
destroyed by bombing had been seen by him” is perfectly logical and correct.

(7) He began to advise me. I
began to be advised by him.

Your question: “isn’t ‘John who was
listening to me all the while began to advise me’ natural or should the
paragraph complete itself with ‘I began to be advised by John’? Or can either
be used and considered normal paragraph completion?

My answer: “John who was listening to
me all the while began to advise me” – in context is natural – correct.
HOWEVER, it is missing commas : “John, who was listening to me all the while,
began to advise me”

The other two (He began to advise
me. I began to be advised by him.) are both natural, correct, and differ
according to the topic focusing (him or me).

(8) Your question: “All the passivised
sentences are syntactically possible. But do people use them? What
contexts occasion these passives? Or the argument that “English is a
topic-focusing language; whatever goes at the beginning of the sentence is
normally the topic of the sentence, and the syntax of the sentence adapts to that”
is good enough for these passivisations to occur in conversations as acceptable
ones? Or does mere possibility of passivisation mean they are naturally occurring
sentences?”

My answers:

A) “All the passivised
sentences are syntactically possible.”

Not all passivized sentences are
syntactically possible. Some are impossible.

B) “But do people use them?”

What contexts occasion these passives? –

Yes, people do use the passive a lot,
when they are focusing on the patient of the action, and/or when they want to
“hide” the actor.

C) [Is] the argument that “English is a
topic-focusing language; whatever goes at the beginning of the sentence is
normally the topic of the sentence, and the syntax of the sentence adapts to
that” is good enough for these passivisations to occur in conversations as
acceptable ones?

Yes, it is good enough, keeping in mind
that there is more to just this. For example, if the topic of the sentence is
the patient of the verb, then the sentence is going to automatically be
passive.

D) […] does mere possibility of
passivisation mean they are naturally occurring sentences?”

Passive sentences are naturally
occurring sentences, because they have an independent semantic role that is
very different from active structures.

The so-called passive in English is in reality a
verb + result adjective construction. That is why teachers and students can get
confused by “I am bored” – is it passive or not? “I am bored by this film”
makes it seem passive, but this is only by adding in extra information (by the
film) where we can see the cause of the boredom.

(a)

I
was broken by the news.

I
was touched by her generosity.

Are these
sentences similar to ‘I’m bored by the film’? Are these seemingly passive, too?

Your question: Are these
sentences similar to ‘I’m bored by the film’? Are these seemingly passive, too?

My answer: the first thing to say is
that English does not really have a passive. The construction we call “passive”
is actually a stative construction that shows result of an action, where the
result is a result adjective derived from a verb:

This paper is torn.

This is torn paper.

This paper is being torn by me.

I am tearing this paper.

Therefore, ‘I am bored by the film’, ‘I
was broken by the news’, ‘I was touched by her generosity’, ‘the window was
broken by the boy’ are FIRST stative result.

We only know if there is an action
focus from context. “Passive” in itself is a context-based reading of the
construction. It is not the meaning of the construction itself. So – the only
true answer is “This paper was torn” can be both stative or “passive” (=
resultative passive) according to context.

My answer : Yes – you are beginning to
understand. The passive is RESULTATIVE – it shows result. This is also true of
the perfect (“I have broken my leg” – the present result is now I have a broken
leg) and the past participle used as an adjective – “I have a broken leg”.

I repeat here – the passive is a
context-based reading of the stative adjective construction, where the
adjective is a result-focusing adjective derived from a verb:

“He breaks the window” leads to “The
window is broken” – “He has broken the window” – “It is a broken window”.

It is not only past participles that
have this role – any adjective that shows a state that is the result of an
action can be read in context as “passive”:

He is tired (“tired” is the result of
doing something that is tiring)

He is bored (“bored” is the result of
doing something that is boring)

He is interested (“interested” is the
result of doing something that is interesting)

He is broke(“broke”is
the result of having spent or lost all one’s money)

He is weary (“weary” is the result of
doing something that is wearying/tiring)

He is red (“red” is the result of being
too long in the sun, or doing an activity that makes the blood rush to the
face, etc.)

He is white (“white” is the result of
the blood rushing from the face – from fear or something like that)

I want breakfast. :
this is also very personal. The
passive is possible, but very strange except in very impersonal contexts (The
escaped prisoners are wanted for murder).

Isn’t
‘wanted’ in the second example an adjective rather than the past participle of
the verb ‘want’?

Rod

(11)

I want breakfast. :
this is also very personal. The passive is possible, but very strange except in
very impersonal contexts (The escaped prisoners are wanted for murder).

Your question: Isn’t ‘wanted’ in the second example an adjective rather
than the past participle of the verb ‘want’?

My answer: yes, it is an adjective – a resultative adjective derived
from the verb “want”. All past participles are resultative adjectives. Cf. “The
escaped prisoners are wanted by the police for murder.”

IV

Are
sentences with intransitive verbs called active voice sentences?

I’m
not sure if native speakers think along these lines or non-native English
teachers or, for that matter, native English teachers, teaching non-native
children. But when I look at a concept of language use I automatically imagine
how I would present it to my students or explain it to my colleagues and what
doubts they could have and how I could clear them. This makes me dig deep but
don’t find answers always. I thank my stars and Linkedin for getting to know
you and for your readiness to clarify and help.

I
may take this liberty whenever I have doubts, and I know you’ll help with a
smile.

I’ve
attached another word file containing my narration of active and passive voice.
Please suggest necessary modifications and improvements in the content and its
organisation and presentation.

I’d
like to post my letter to you and your response on my blog. I need your
permission.

My answer: yes, in a general sense that is true. However, certain
intransitive verbs are not active, but stative (e.g. “I am a teacher”, “She
looks hungry”), and many are somewhere between the two (e.g. “I believe in
World Peace”, “He is standing at the door”, “He is sleeping” - are “believe”,
“stand” and “sleep” states, actions or states of mind?)

English does not make a grammatical distinction between “active” and “stative”
(except in certain uses of the “simple” and “continuous”).

In syntactic terms, in English, even passive sentences (like “the window
was broken” and “the window got broken”) where the subject and verb are
concerned have exactly the same syntax as active/stative sentences:

I am tired.

I sleep

I walk

I eat some chicken.

I am bitten by a mosquito.

I get bitten by a mosquito.

I get a letter.

I get sick.

Rod

(13) your question “I’d like to post my letter to you and your response on my
blog. I need your permission.”

When
you explain it, it sounds so simple, and I feel I’ve known these too but not
with the clarity that you express with. I need further clarity.

Some
reflections on your replies:

5.

We took a long vacation. We travelled by train or
bus. We visited churches, age-old buildings, we sat by the brooks with our feet
in the cool water, we cooked our own food, we slept on the lawns, we looked up
and delighted at the starry sky. Fun was had by every one of us.

I wouldn’t conclude the paragraph this way as it
focusses on ‘we’. I can’t think of ‘fun’ as the topic of run-on sentences in a
paragraph so that the use of ‘fun has had by everyone’ can be justified.

3.

I see the same problem in “‘good mornings’ was said
by all present and the business started.’” I can’t think of a continuous
paragraph where ‘good morning’ as a greeting can be the theme.

7.

I was mulling over the problem of how to respond to
a request from my cousin. John entered, saw a worried look and asked ‘what’s
eating you?’ I told him. I began to be advised by him.

How can I justify the passive?

Am I right in saying the passive constructions such
as these can only be in single statements and not close a paragraph or come in
its middle where their occurrence would be odd rather than natural?

(8)Your question: “All the passivised sentences are
syntactically possible. But do people use them? What contexts
occasion these passives? Or the argument that “English is a
topic-focusing language; whatever goes at the beginning of the sentence is
normally the topic of the sentence, and the syntax of the sentence adapts to
that” is good enough for these passivisations to occur in conversations as
acceptable ones? Or does mere possibility of passivisation mean they are naturally occurring
sentences?”

Here
I was referring to only the foregoing 7 sentences. Your answers—A, B, C, D— if
I understand them correctly, have a generalised context. I should perhaps have
qualified as ‘are these passivised
sentences...’.

11

You
said ‘all past participles are resultative adjectives’. Why is ‘adjective’
used? Though they are ‘verbs’ syntactically, they describe the ‘result’ and
hence termed so? This means that all past participles in allpassive statements
adjectives but not in active statements. Am I right?

Rod’s explanation

My pleasure, as always.

The difference between passive and
active is context-based – not sentence or paragraph based. In example 5.,
because the context is “we” and what we did – and so it is focusing on us
personally, then the active is the context. That is why “Fun was had by every
one of us“ does not work in that example – the whole context is personal, then
suddenly becomes impersonal. The “passive” expresses “impersonalness”.

We took a long vacation. We travelled
by train or bus. We visited churches, age-old buildings, we sat by the brooks
with our feet in the cool water, we cooked our own food, we slept on the lawns,
we looked up and delighted at the starry sky. Fun was had by every one of us.

That is to say, the psychological
distinction between active and passive is “personal” and “impersonal” with
regard to the action.

Saturday morning in the City Centre was
the tenth annual City Fair Day, opened by Mayor Henderson and attended by
various local business people and others. The City Fair Day was opened by the
Mayor at 9 AM, and then the festivities commenced. An estimated 20,000 people
attended the day, and fun was had by all.

This paragraph is a fairly impersonal
news report, as the whole context is focusing on the City Fair Day, and not the
people attending.

“Good mornings” were said by everyone:

The visit to the Skinflats reserve saw
twenty-one of us meet up, on what was a lovely morning. After the good mornings
were said and we all had a chat it was time for the short drive into the
reserve. Here we were met by Toby Wilson from the R.S.P.B who gave us an
introduction to the reserve.

(http://www.rspb.org.uk/groups/forthvalley/reports/299539/)

As for example 7. – you can’t justify
that passive, because he context is too personal.

I was mulling over the problem of how
to respond to a request from my cousin. John entered, saw a worried look and
asked ‘what’s eating you?’ I told him. I began to be advised by him.

Passives can only be justified in
impersonal contexts:

Last year, during the second
semester, parents began to be advised to start having their children vaccinated
in order to attend the upcoming year due to a statewide order of immunizing all
students.

…..

Ankiel, who began to be advised by
Boras and his associates after his sophomore year, realized all of his dreams
could be fulfilled through baseball.

Your question: In other words, am
I right in saying the passive constructions such as these can only be in single
statements and not close a paragraph or come in its middle where their
occurrence would be odd rather than natural?

Answer: no – passives can be single
statements, subordinate statements, starting, middle, end – just as actives can
be. It is the “personal” and “impersonal” contextualisation that decides their
use.

Your question : You said ‘all past
participles are resultative adjectives’. Why is ‘adjective’ used? Though they
are ‘verbs’ syntactically, is it because they describe the ‘result’ (they
function as adjective) and are hence termed so? This means that all past
participles in allpassive statements are adjectives but not in
active statements. Am I right?

Answer : verbs are first and foremost
“finite” (past, present, future, etc.). “go/goes” and “went” are the non-past
and past forms of the verb “go”. Verbs also have nominal derivatives; that is
to say, nouns and adjectives can be made from verbs, just as verbs can be made
from nouns and adjectives (e.g. “black” and “white” > “blacken” and
“whiten”; in most cases English simply uses a noun or adjective as a verb :
they blackened their faces = they blacked their faces).

Nominal derivatives are “non-finite” of
“infinite” forms of the verb; however in syntax and semantics they are nouns
and adjectives, NOT verbs. The description of “verb” is not based on syntax,
but on the origin of the words.

Run > running – a nominal that
refers to the activity of the verb:

He is running. (a noun/adjective – in
origin in English “running” in this construction is a noun)

He is a running man. (an adjective)

The running made him tired. (a noun)

Run > run (infinitive/base form) – a
nominal that refers to the action/state of the verb

He watched his friend run to the shop
(infinitive = a verbal noun)

He wants to run. (infinitive – a noun,
which is why the preposition “to” is used; prepositions can’t be used with
verbs in English).

The run wore him out. (a noun).

The “past participle” is a nominal that
refers to the result of the action:

The window is broken (adjective – in
the state that is the result of the activity of breaking)

The broken window must be repaired
(adjective – in the state that is the result of the activity of breaking)

The halt and the broken came to the
Lord to be healed (noun – the group of people who are in a state that is the
result of breaking)

You
said ‘all past participles are resultative adjectives’. Why is ‘adjective’
used? Though they are ‘verbs’ syntactically, they describe the ‘result’ and
hence termed so? This means that all past participles in allpassive statements
are adjectives but not in active statements. Am I right?

Rod’s response

No – past participles are not verbs syntactically – they are
adjectives derived from verbs. They act as adjectives in all syntactic constructions:

The window is broken. The
window is in a state that is the result of breaking.

The broken window swung in the wind. ditto

The window has broken. The
window has obtained (arrived in) a state that is the result of breaking.

The window got broken. The
window has been caused to obtain (arrive in) a state that is the result of
breaking.

(as I mentioned in point (ii) below)

They do form part of a “verb complex” (a verb phrase); however,
this does not mean that they are verbs in their own right. Verb complexes have
a verb as the head, and then nominalised forms of verbs (infinitive [base
form], ing-form, en-form [past participle])

(ii)

The “past participle” is a nominal that refers to the result of the
action:

The window is broken (adjective – in the state that is the result of the
activity of breaking)

The broken window must be repaired (adjective – in the state that
is the result of the activity of breaking)

The halt and the broken came to the Lord to be healed (noun – the group
of people who are in a state that is the result of breaking)

I
doubt if (ii) answered my question about the status of past participle in
present or past perfect form as in

I have done my duty. My duty is in the state that is the result
of my doing it.

They have learnt their lesson. Their lessons
are in the state that is the result of learning.

We have drawn the amount. The amount of
money is the state that is the result of the action of withdrawing.

The
expressions following the verbs in this set are necessary for completion of
meaning.

Set
2 – these are
also standard transitive sentences – syntactically there is nothing strange.
However, the first example doesn’t belong here; it belongs in Set 1.

He
cut himself. – the
only difference this has from standard transitives is that the direct object is
reflexive (the action goes back to the subject).

He
nodded his head. – this is a standard transitive. It is immaterial if the
head moved is his own. He still did a transitive action that (in this case)
cause the direct object to move (in a physical sense).

She
smiled her thanks. – this is also a standard transitive sentence. She did a
transitive action that (in this case) cause the direct object to move (in an
abstract sense).

This
climate does not suit me. – this is also a standard transitive sentence. The climate
does an action that affects the direct object (me).

The
expressions following the verbs in this set are necessary for completion of
meaning. This
is true for all transitive sentences – there is nothing special in this between
Sets 1 and 2.

Note,
also, that it is not a true statement in all cases. For example, “he
nodded” is perfectly correct, because the
only thing that can nod in this sense is the head. So, in this case, the direct
object is not necessary for completion of meaning.

Intransitive

Set
3 – this set
is wrongly stated – it mixes two types of sentences, those with a noun phrase
(transitive stative), and those with adjectives (intransitive stative)

Stative intransitive : Sub – stative verb - state

I
am angry.

This
soup tastes horrible.

He
appears foolish.

Stative transitive : Sub – Stative verb – direct object

She
has a lot of property. – this is transitive, NOT intransitive.

He
became a thief. – this is transitive, NOT intransitive.

They
turned traitors– this
is transitive, NOT intransitive.

Of
course, the direct object in this type of sentence does not have the same
status as the direct objects in Set 1 or Set 2; they are still direct objects,
however (e.g. pronouns take the object form: He became me for a
day, and I became him for a day).

The
expressions following the verbs here are also necessary for meaning
completion. – This statement again is an unnecessary one
- ALL sentences of these types have to have to mention the state being referred
to, or the noun that is referred to, just as transitive sentences must have
their direct object mentioned.

Query one

Set
2 sentences are transitive in syntax while they are intransitive in meaning.
Would it not be better for everyone (especially non-native teachers and
learners) if they were placed in SVC pattern?
- No,
they are transitive in meaning. Their specific type of transitivity is
causative transitive (an action or movement of the direct object is caused).

Query two

By
the same token, ‘what surprised me most was that they were so cheerful about
their loss’ (VP 22 A—SV subject C under intransitive) and ‘you can rely upon
that man’ and ‘we agreed upon a plan’ (VP 24 A—SV prep. + prepositional object
under intransitive) are not subject-focussed in meaning and hence transitive
and so be placed under transitive verb pattern?

‘what
surprised me most was that they were so cheerful about their loss’

Are
you asking about what surprised me? If so,
this is a standard transitive clause. “Me” is the direct object affected by the
subjects action. Note that Set 1 and Set 2 are two ends of a continuum; they
are not discreet, and what surprised me
is towards the middle of the continuum.

‘you
can rely upon that man’

‘we
agreed upon a plan’

Rely
and agree are intransitive verbs. The presence of a preposition in this way
ALWAYS means intransitivity is in question. They are both subject-focusing,
because “you” and “we” are the topics of the sentences. “Upon that man” and
“upon a plan” are prepositional phrases, and are NOT direct objects.

He (doesn’t) want(s) to go : intransitive sentence (“to go” is a
prepositional phrase, not a direct object). – the fact of positivity or negativity doesn’t change this in any way.
It is not necessary to state two rules when one will do.

They have proved X (X = they are [to be considered] worthy of
promotion)

He declared X (he is [to be considered] a member of the R.C.
Church)

I judged X (he is [to be considered] fifty)

We believe X (it [to have been considered] a mistake)

that
are subject-focussed and hence intransitive, and the list goes on.

Both
transitive and intransitive sentences can be subject-focusing. This is not a
way to diagnose transitivity or intransitivity. It is the presence of a direct
object or the lack of one that shows if the clause is transitive or not.

Overall query

Wouldn’t
it better to re-do the verb patterns based on meaning?

Of
course – that goes almost without saying.

Where
transitivity and intransitivity is concerned, the first thing is the presence
or absence of a direct object.

THEN
– there are the different types of action, such as simple transitives,
reflexive transitives, state-attainment transitives, causative transitives,
simple intransitives, stative transitives, reflexive intransitives, and so on.

These
are based on meaning, exactly so.

Clarification 3

Voice
is the form of a verb that shows whether the subject of the sentence performs
the action (the active voice) or is
affected by it (the passive voice). Advanced Learner’s

I
am not surprised how many grammars don’t mention the middle voice, because it
is a voice that depends on verb meaning, not on grammar. In English, the middle
voice is intransitive active in syntax, even though it is passive in meaning.
That is why it is called “middle” – because it is between the two.

The way I see
it:

According
to this, your examples

1) ‘The chicken was roasting in the oven’
[middle voice (ergative)] is a passive voice

sentence though it has an active
voice sentence structure.

In
the middle voice, the underlying object is the surface active subject. As it is
subject-focusing in syntactic terms, it is NOT passive.

and

2) ‘They are tiger hunting’ is
object-focussed and hence passive sentence though

structurally an active sentence.

No
– it isn’t passive. It is what is called in descriptive grammar “anti-passive”.
It is subject focusing, and so can NOT be passive.

Query:

Doesn’t
this mean that we should say active and passive sentences rather than active
and passive voice sentences?

Many
people do – it is not necessary to say “voice” – though this term helps make it
clear that we are talking about something that is not tense, aspect or mood.
Transitivity and intransitivity are also voices, strictly speaking.

note:
[b] We distinguish terminologically the agent, as defined above (and in
grammatical tradition), from the agentive, which is a semantic role (cf 10.19) often assumed by the subject
of active sentence or by the agent of a passive sentence (cf 9.50)

p.
741 (10.19)

The
most typical semantic role of a subject in a clause that has a direct object is
that of the AGENTIVE participant: that is, the animate being instigating or
causing the happening denoted by the verb:

Margaret is mowing the
grass.

Query:

If,
in the example above, ‘Margaret’ is an agentive participant, aren’t ‘The
butler’ and ‘John’ ‘agentive’, too? Why
do Quirk et al call these ‘agents’? What semantic role is there in ‘Margaret is
mowing the grass’ that isn’t found in ‘The butler murdered the detective’ and
‘John admired Mary’? In other words, what distinctions do Query et al bring
about between ‘agent’ and ‘agentive participant’?

The
subjects of all simple, causative and other transitives are always agentive,
yes. There is no difference between agent and agentive participant –
they are just different ways of saying the same thing.

Quirk et al:

The
most typical role of the direct object is that of the AFFECTED participant: a
participant (animate or inanimate) which does not cause the happening denoted by the verb, but is directly or
indirectly involved in some other way:
(I printed ‘not’ in bold for my purpose)

Many
MPs criticized the Prime Minister.

James
sold his digital watch yesterday.

Query:

How
do Quirk et al say ‘the Prime Minister’ doesn’t cause the happening which is
‘criticized’ because some action, statement, behaviour of the PM must have caused
the MPs to cricitize.

Because
in the specific act of criticizing, the Prime Minister is not actually assumed
to be doing anything. He is sitting there (perhaps) “passively” receiving the
criticism as an “object”. You have to keep a clear distinction between
contextual knowledge (what we know or assume about the background context) and
the information given in the sentence itself.

The
window had been broken with a stone- instrumental
by someone -
agentive. [1c]

The
window had been broken with a stone.
[1d] -
instrumental

The
window had been broken by a stone.
[1e] -
agentive.

Quirk
et al term ‘by a stone’ as instrument. And they point out a meaning difference:
1d excludes human agency and 1e excludes natural agency as clearly seen in

My
car had been damaged {by the branch of a tree.

{with the branch of a tree.

Both
agentive and instrument may be said to denote the semantic role of AGENCY.

Here
Quirk et al made an analytical error. A stone can be dislodged by someone
walking or an earth tremor, can bound down a hill and break a window through
its own doing. With shows instrument (the thing WITH which the subject does an action), while BY shows AGENT (the thing that
was BY the action and therefore did
the action itself).

Query:

1.
Quirk et al term ‘by someone’ as agentive, which they define as ‘the initiating
cause and

typically animate, usually personal’. But
isn’t it the agent? Agent refers to the things(person as a noun, agentive is the adjective.

2.
Presence of 1 and 1c as examples surprised me; do natives convey the breakage
this way?

I
am surprised that you should be surprised. They are perfectly normal sentences.
IN other words, No
one would look at you with a questioning look if you made this statement in a
police station in London or Washington?

The
window had been broken this is different – it doesn’t say how the window got
broken; it simply makes a statement of its resulting state through breaking.

In
which case the explanation I made in my post on active and passive sentences
(the one

I’d
sent to you in a separate attachment) will be wrong and I’ll have to change it.
Possibly – I
haven’t seen it yet.

Continuation

The following refers to my question in (ii) under clarification 1

1. If I were to parse ‘have done’ in ‘I have done my duty; would it be:

helping
verb + past participle of ‘do’

or

helping
verb + nominal?

Assuming
the analysis that the past participle is a verbal adjective (hence a nominal),
then:

verb
+ resultative adjective

This
analysis assumes that in the English sentence there is only one verb, and that
auxiliary verbs and modal verbs are full verbs.

2. Both transitive and intransitive sentences can be
subject-focusing. This is not a way to diagnose transitivity or intransitivity.
It is the presence of a direct object or the lack of one that shows if the
clause is transitive or not.

It then appears that ONLY the presence or absence of a direct object
will decide whether a sentence is transitive or intransitive.

That
is right.

(i) What words or expressions can be called ‘direct
objects’? Anything that can go in the direct object slot (nouns,
pronouns, clauses)

He saw [John go into the store] – “John go into the store” is the direct
object in this sentence.

(ii) Is there a difference between ‘direct object’ and ‘object’?

Verbs
and prepositions both have objects. The Direct Object is the transitive object
of a verb; the indirect object is a nominal that has a dative case function.

(please see ‘4.a and 4.b below.)

She murdered her husband. (set
1)

He cut
himself. (set
2)

She has a lot of
property. (set 3)

With reference to set 3, you said: Of course, the direct object in
this type of sentence does not have the same status as the direct objects in
Set 1 or Set 2; they are still direct objects,...

(ii) If there are three kinds of direct objects, how does the definition
of ‘direct object’ provide

for these distinctions?

It
is a blanket term – “her husband” is a direct object, “himself” is a reflexive
direct object, and “a lot of property” is a direct object; there is no
syntactic distinction between set 1 and set 3, while set 2 is only different in
being reflexive. The distinction between set 1 and 3 is semantic; they are
really part of the same category.

3.

If ‘surprised’ in ‘what surprised me most was that they were
so cheerful about their loss’ is a transitive verb, why is it found in VP 22
A—SV subject C under ‘intransitive verb list’ in Hornby?

Because
Hornsby made a mistake. He assumed that the underlying clause is “I was
surprised by what ….” – and that this is stative intransitive (which it is);
without realising that we are also talking about a passive, and that the active
equivalent is “X surprised me” – X being what surprised me.

4. a. ‘you can rely upon that man’

‘we agreed upon a plan’

Rely and agree are
intransitive verbs. ... “Upon that man” and “upon a plan” are

prepositional phrases,
and are NOT direct objects.

But then they can be put in the passive:

That man can be relied upon.

A plan was agreed upon.

How are they then intransitive?

That
is a characteristic of prepositional phrases as well – prepositional phrases
also have verb-like characteristics. It doesn’t mean that the VERB is
transitive. Or – in other words – certain types of intransitive verbs can also
appear in passive-like sentences – and certain types of transitive verbs CAN’T
appear in passive sentences (e.g. they set up house together – this sentence cannot
be made passive).

b. Hornby Verb Patterns:

VP 15 (transitive) and VP 24B
(intransitive) have the same word order.

VP 15

The tribunal has to decide (the
question) who the land belongs to.

(the question) who the land belongs
to has to be decided.

The captain decides who shall play
in the team.

Who shall play in the team is
decided by the captain.

VP 24B

(This table illustrates the use of
verbs in this pattern when the object of the preposition is

I’d
written a section on Active and Passive voice in my grammar book: A Handy Book
on English Grammar. I’d requested Rod to comment on the thoughts I’d expressed.

My request

I

Please take a look at the attachment entitled
Active and Passive Voice’ and let me have your opinion.

In the document “Active and Passive
Voice” everything looks good except two.

The one suggestion is this :

Rod’s response

1.3 Passive voice—Basic

We form sentences in two ways:

•
in ‘active’ voice where we give importance to the ‘actor’

• in
‘passive’ voice where we give importance to the ‘action’‘patient’ [the object
of the action, which is the subject of the sentence].

There are two other
constructions which focuses on the action:

1) middle voice (or
ergative)

“The chicken was roasting
in the oven.” “roast” here is the action that the chicken is undergoing.

2) object-incorporation

“They went out tiger
hunting.”

In both of these cases, the
action is to the fore. The “active” is actor focusing, the passive is “patient”
focusing, while the middle voice and the “object-incorporated” structures focus
on the action that is happening either to the subject (middle voice is similar
to the passive, as the subject is the patient of the action), or the action the
actor is doing to an undefined patient. The difference between the passive and
the middle voices is that the passive focuses on the result of the action,
while the middle voice focuses on the action as it happens.

The chicken is roasted : the
result of roasting.

The chicken roasts :
undergoes the action of roasting

The difference between the
active and the incorporated subject construction is that this latter can only
be continuous; however, more importantly, the object in the object incorporated
construction is uncountable – it is a generalization – while the active is more
specific.

4. a. India played against
Australia b. India
played against Australia

and Australia defeated
India. and
was defeated by Australia.

c. India
played against Australia and was defeated.

5. a. My employer gave me
three b. I
was given three advance increments

advance
increments. by
my employer.

c. I
was given three advance increments.

All these 13 sentences are grammatically, that is structure-wise,
correct but all of them are not acceptable. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b., 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b,
5a, 5b are not what native users of English would normally say; they would
rather use 2c, 4c, 5c. Of course, 3a would be acceptable while answering an
insistent query by an officer.

All
of them are correct and native speakers can and do use them in the right
context. There is nothing strange about any of them.

2c is the natural expression and the others are unnatural because the
focus is on ‘loss’ and also because it is obvious that someone (whoever it may
be—thieves or a colleague) has taken the watch, there is no need to mention it.
Of course, it’d be natural to say ‘I lost my watch (this morning)’ if the
speaker were the focus.

2.c.
is only the natural expression when the speaker does not want to say who stole
the watch, or just has no idea who did that. They are focusing completely on
the watch.

The
active is used (in all cases), when the focus shifts to the active/agentive
subject.

Again, 4c is the natural expression instead of 4b because it’s clear
that the defeat occurred at the hands of Australia. 4a is not natural because
there is no need to shift the focus from India to Australia.

4a
is natural in the right context (which is an emphasising one). 4c is not really
the most natural – it is the most economical. In the right context, 4.b. is
used.

And 5c is the natural expression because again it is obvious who gave
the increments. Here the focus is on ‘receiving’ rather than on ‘giving’.

Not
the “natural” expression, rather the most econominal. However, it is not always
given that it is the employer who gives increments. Sometimes that needs to be
made clear.

So use active voice when you have the ‘doer’—the ‘actor’—in mind, and
use passive voice when

i. you
know who the doer is or when the doer is not important

He
was handcuffed and taken to the police station.

(here
there is no need to say ‘by the police’.)

ii. you
don’t know who the doer is or when the act is more important.

He
was murdered last night.

iii. the doer is
irrelevant

Several
soldiers were killed in yesterday’s fight.

I only hope you have a good idea of when to use the passive voice.

You
missed out “when you want to hide the actor”

“Several
students were injured in yesterdays riots.”

This
is a typical police report to the newspapers. Probably it was the police who
injured the students, however they want to focus on the rioting students. The
students in their report would say: “the police injured several students in the
demonstration yesterday”.

This is a structural/functional way of identifying
the roles of the parts of the sentence. The passive focuses on the “patient”,
not the action. The “agent” focuses on who causes/does the result on the
“patient”; “actor” focuses on who does an action.

Depending on the type of language, then how
grammar/syntax handles this can be very difficult. In nominative-accusative
languages like English, the agent and the actor are the same in form
(“subject”), and the direct object (patient) is different. In
absolutive-ergative languages, the actor and the patient are the same in form,
and the agent is different. These are the two most common language types in the
world, but there are also others, like stative-non stative languages, and
others.

The verb itself (in English) does not show any of
these things EXCEPT as part of the meaning of the verb. Active, passive,
stative, transitive and intransitive are syntactic and semantic properties in
English, not verb propereties.

In your 6.38 email you explained the
role of ‘patient’ but didn’t say why you’d used the word ‘patient’.
Is that the technical word that describes what happens to the object of the
active voice sentence? I haven’t seen this expression in grammar books.

krl

Rod’s response:

I am not surprised you can’t find it in the
traditional grammar books; they are based on the Grammar-translation tradition
[and are old fashioned and sometimes inaccurate – they often do not keep up to
date with more modern research].

“Patient” is a term from theoretical linguistics –
other terms are the “target” or “undergoer” or “theme”. It is the participant
in a situation upon which an action is carried out. “Direct object” is the
grammar-translation term. Some linguists make a distinction between “patient” –
and “undergoer” that changes state (e.g. I broke the window – the window
changes its state from whole to broken) and “theme”, where the direct object
doesn’t change state (e.g. I have a book)

“Patients” can be in passive clauses (the window
was broken by me; the window got broken by me), while “themes” can’t (*”A book
was had by me” cannot be said).

Underlying patients in sentences like “The fish
changed colour” (the fish undergoes the action, not the colour) also often
cannot be in passive structures (*“Colour was changed by the fish” cannot be
said). However, this depends also on how much control the subject (the
underlying patient) has : “I underwent an operation” can become “An operation
was undergone by me”, because the implication is that I have a certain amount
of control over the process.

Actor, agent and patient are terms for roles (and
“instrument”) – the patient is the thing that undergoes the action, the actor
does an action, and the agent causes an action to happen to a patient. They are
not sentence structure terms. “Subject” (alt. “topic”) and “object” are
sentence structure terms. This can be quite complex – terms for roles remain
the same regardless of the structural state of the word/phrase. The structural
terms remain the same regardless of the role of the words within each part:

John walked to the shop. : - John is the “actor”
and the “subject/topic”

Walking to the shop was done by John. : John is the
“actor”, while “Walking to the shop” is the “subject/topic”; it is also the
“patient”/”theme” (it is somewhere between these two concepts); “John” is the
“agent”, and the “object” of the prepositional phase “by John”.

John painted the chair. : - John is the “agent” and
the “subject/topic”; “chair” is “the patient” and the “object”

The chair was painted by John : - “the chair” is
the “patient” and the “subject/topic”; “John” is the “agent”, and the “object”
of the prepositional phase “by John”.

John underwent an operation : - “John” is the
“patient” and the “subject/topic”, “an operation” is an “instrument” and the
“direct object”.

An operation was undergone by John. : “John” is the
“patient” and the “object” of the prepositional phrase “by John” [and a
notional “agent” in having some control over the process], “an operation” is an
“instrument” and the “subject/topic”.

The passive focuses on the patient that undergoes
an action, which is I structure a subject/topic, NOT on the action (that is a
different grammatical category, as I said somewhere else).

In
ELT Professionals Around The World, an English teachers community at LinkedIn, Mr
Vengatesan Sundararajan had posted for a discussion:

“What was written in this letter?” How can
we change it into active voice?

Mr
Rod Mitchell posted this response:

A "discovery" made back in the early 80s
(at least) was that there is no direct link between the active and the passive
[and, also, that there is strictly speaking no such thing as either in English-
English doesn't mark for either active or passive, but rather has these
concepts as part of the verb meanings in themselves].

In practical terms, the so-called passive is a stative constuction that shows
that the subject (the "topic") is in a state that is the result of an
action. As Katerina says, this means that when we are referring to the topic
and the resulting state it is in, we use wording that shows that, which often
does not include mentioning the doer of the action.

What was written in this letter?

"what" is the topic of the sentence.

This also means that there are "passive" sentences, like this one,
that do not have an "active" equivalent. In other words, strictly
speaking, we can't change it into any active voice, because, by doing so, we
change the whole reason for the sentence. We actually make a completely
different sentence that expresses a different set of relationships, because we
start focusing on a doer as the topic of the sentence.

The reason why it has no "active" "equivalent" is simple.
We want to know what is in the letter, not how it got there.

[This is part of the field "topic grammar" - that English is a
topic-focusing language, which holds that traditional "dichotomies"
such as active-passive are bvased on the application of Latin-based grammar to
English - Latin really does have an activ-passive contrast:

domino "I act as the head/leader/master of the household, etc." (>
I dominate)
dominor "I act as the led person (etc.)" (> I am dominated, X
dominates me)]

About Me

I hail from Thamizh Nadu, a Southern state of India. I speak Thamizh, Thelugu, English and Hindi.

I served for 43 years as a teacher of English in schools and colleges in India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. I've published several articles on ELT and of general interest in the USA, Ethiopia and India. I've presented several papers in national and international conferences. I've written several course books for the English syllabuses of Bachelor of Engineering of Madras University, Anna University and JNTU, Hyderabad, for public consumption as well.